- (1.)Both the above Criminal Original Petitions have been filed' in one and the same case in Crime No. 12 pf 2003 registered by the respondent. Crl. O.P. No. 17225 of 2003 is filed by the accused Nos. 5 and 6 and Crl. O.P. No. 1727 I of 2003 is filed by the 7th accused in the said case, both seeking to call for the records of the case in Crime No. 12 of the 2003 on the file of the respondent and quash the complaint.
(2.)The allegations are such as that the petitioners in Crl. O.P. No. 17225 of 2003 are dealing in yarn respectively under the name and style of M/s. Arvind Cotton and M/s. Swastik Yarn Agency in Kolapur District, Maharashtra; that one D. Krishnan, owner and representative of Shri Textiles and S.P. Trading Company of Coimbatore appears to have filed a complaint against the petitioners in both the above Crl. O.Ps. for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, alleging cheating by way of dishonour of cheques, criminal breach of trust, criminal misappropriation, cheating and fraud and the matter is under investigation.
(3.)The further case of the petitioners is that they used to issue post-dated cheques, as security in advance and on receipt of the same, the de facto complainant would supply Yarn to the petitioners and deliver them when the money is realised; that these cheques would be with the de facto complainant; that in sipte of there being no arrears on the part of the petitioners towards payment for textile items, the cheques obtained from the petitioners have been illegally and without any consideration retained by the de facto complainant, who has transformed the said cheques to the third party concerned and sent the same for encashment; that the de facto complainant issued notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, threatening the petitioners for imprisonment and though the de facto complainant knew that those cheques were without consideration and in spite of having received the amount in hand, the cheques have been unreasonably sent for collection and after having been returned as "insufficiency of funds", the de facto complainant threatened the petitioners with dire consequences as in the manner aforementioned and in fact, since the complaint had been lodged before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. VI, Coimbatore for the aforementioned offences, the petitioners would ultimately pray to quash the case registered in Crime No. 12 of 2003 on the file of the respondent.
3A. During arguments, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, besides laying emphasis on the -facts pleaded in both the above Crl. O.Ps., would also cite decisions rendered, which are as follows : (i) In Pasumai Irrigation Ltd. Chennai v. Mansi Finance (Chennai) Ltd., Chennai, (2003) 2 CTC 270, this Court has held :

"In matters of civil Jurisdiction wherein subject-matter is based on contract or civil agreement or money transaction, execution of pronotes, bond, cheques etc. only Civil Court is having competent jurisdiction to entertain and decide dispute On facts held that case is of civil nature in respect of which petition for winding up Company is already pending Complaint quashed by High Court as one of Civil nature."
(ii) In Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P., (2003) 2 Crimes 196: (2003 Cri LJ 1249), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held :
"Where the complaint or the FIR does not disclose commission of a cognizable offence, the same case be quashed even at the initial stage The learned Magistrate before whom the complaint was filed passed an order under Section 156(3). Cr.P.C., directing the police to investigate the offence as the same was cognizable offence."
In the above case, the police is said to have gone into the facts and after sufficient investigation, ultimately advised the complainant to approach the Civil Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court, in appreciation of those facts and circumstances, would ultimately allow the criminal appeal preferred by the appellant. (iii) In Shri Narayandas Sohanlal Bagadi v. State of Maharashtra in a case in Criminal No. 10503 of 1997, filing an application under Section 227 of the Constitution of India and 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the F.I.R. pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ichhalkarnji in Criminal Case No. 385 of 1997 in which the accused have purchased Yarn worth nearly 1. & lakhs from the de facto complainant and have not paid the amount of bill to the complainant and alleging that they have cheated by making statement that they would pay the bill within a particular period, failed to comply with and thereafter on filing the complaint, learned Magistrate has referred it to the police under Section 156(3) of "the Cr.P.C. and the police having registered and investigated into, found that the complaint does not disclose any offence in which the Court, -remarking that it is a clear-cut misuse of the process of the criminal Court, by resorting to such complaint with a view of recovering the amount due for which the remedy of filing a civil suit is available to the complainant. The short-cut method of approaching the Civil Court and pressurising the other side to make payment under duress of being harassed by the police by calling for investigation and such practice deserves to be deprecated and on such grounds, the Bombay High Court has allowed the petition for quashing the complaint. On citing the above judgments, learned counsel would pray to grant the relief extracted supra.